---

Health Bill

Yes. So presumably quite a few people must be employed overall if we are talking about clubs with a membership running into many millions. We have had fairly clear evidence—I know that others will contest it but, to me, it is fairly clear—of the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. One source that is often cited is the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, which advises the Government and has said that exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer and heart disease to non-smokers by about one quarter. That exposure in the workplace in total—we are certainly not talking just about clubs—has led to about 600 deaths a year, three times the number killed in industrial accidents. It also causes illness, not least asthma attacks, at work. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to the position of ex-servicemen. As always, he spoke very movingly about their situation. I think he said that we owe them something. We owe employees something as well. We certainly owe them something in the sense of not leaving them exposed to what most—I appreciate that some will argue against the evidence—now accept to be very clear evidence of the potentially lethal effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. I come to this looking from the position of staff—employees. I say to myself: ““Why should people employed in such clubs not have the same protection as people employed elsewhere?”” I can think of no acceptable reason for that. The argument has been made that members of such clubs make their own rules. I certainly do not profess to know all the details. What I am saying may be wrong, but presumably they do not make the rules concerning statutory employment law provision for those whom they employ. For example, I do not know what the provision is concerning fire regulations, but I am sure that there must be many areas of activity in which members of those clubs are not able to make their own rules and decide what should happen. As I say, I am coming at this from a totally different point of view from that of the noble Lord who moved the amendment—he did so with some feeling. I look at it from the point of view of those who are employed in such clubs and I see no reason why they should not have the same protection as applies to people who work elsewhere, especially in the light of the fact that the evidence of the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke seems to me quite conclusive.